JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— In this suit the plaintiff's claim was for money alleged to be due to him by the defendants upon a commission agency account. The defendant's firm sent bags of indigo to the plaintiff for sale on commission. It appears that 436 bags were sent between the 24th of December, 1898, and the 15th of February, 1899, from Muttra by the defendants, and that 27½ bags were purchased by the plaintiff at Cawnpore for the defendants for sale. In all, the defendants were commissioned to sell 463½ bags. Of these, 369 bags were sold on or before the 31st of August, 1899, but 94½ bags were not sold for 10 months and more, despite express instructions to the plaintiff from the defendants to sell them forthwith for any sum which could be obtained in the market. The written statement of the defendants, though not artistically drawn, is perfectly clear as to what their case was. They say that by reason of the neglect and carelessness of the plaintiff in the fulfilment of obligations under the contract, as agent, he has caused considerable loss to the defendants, and that this loss the plaintiff should make good, and they claim a set-off in respect of that loss. The learned District Judge on appeal has come to the conclusion that inasmuch as the set off was not claimed in a formal manner, that is, we presume was not claimed as yet-off within the meaning of section in of the Code of Civil Procedure, he could not award relief to the defendants by way of set-off. He overlooked the fact that relief may be given by way of set-off otherwise than under section III. 2. He says in his judgment:— “It is clear also that in the present case no set-off for damages, & c, having been claimed by defendants in a formal manner, no set-off against plaintiff's claim can be made in that way.” But the learned District Judge did give relief in what he considers an informal way, namely, an equitable set-off; he has measured the amount of damage which the defendants suffered by reason of the gross negligence of the plaintiff in abstaining from selling the indigo at the proper time. He has in effect estimated the loss suffered by the defendants as equivalent to the amount which in the ordinary course the plaintiff would have been entitled to for brokerage, warehouse charges, & c, and set-off the one against the other, Now, that a set-off of damages in this way may be allowed in clear from a number of decisions, the latest of which is the case of Niaz Gul Khan v. Durga Parshad : [1892] I.L.R., 15 All., 9, in which EDGE, C.J., and BLAIR J., pointed out that “there is a series of decisions, showing that in the view of the Courts in India a right to set-off may arise under circumstances under which the right would not arise in England and under circumstances under which a right to set-off under section in of the Code of Civil Procedure would not arise.” We think, therefore, that the learned District Judge, was justified in the course which he adopted, namely in allowing an equitable set-off, and that his decree ought not to be disturbed. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. The objections are withdrawn.